[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7314-S7323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  STOP SANCTUARY POLICIES AND PROTECT AMERICANS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2146, which the 
clerk shall now report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 252, S. 2146, a bill to 
     hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for defying Federal 
     law, to increase penalties for individuals who illegally 
     reenter the United States after being removed, and to provide 
     liability protection for State and local law enforcement who 
     cooperate with Federal law enforcement and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the American people have demanded for years 
that the Federal Government faithfully enforce our Nation's immigration 
laws. Americans are tired of seeing their laws flouted and their 
communities plagued by the horrible crimes that typically accompany 
illegal immigration. But for too long, the pleas of the American people 
on this issue have gone unheeded here in Washington.
  See, when it comes to the problem of illegal immigration, the 
political class and the business class--our Nation's elites--are of one 
mind. They promise robust enforcement at some point in the future but 
only on the condition that the American people accept a pathway to 
citizenship now for the millions of illegal immigrants who are already 
in this country.
  Not wanting to be swindled, the American people wisely rejected this 
deal, which the Washington class calls ``comprehensive immigration 
reform.'' Of course, the elites don't like this one bit. So instead, 
they have taken matters into their own hands. They bend or ignore the 
law to make it more difficult for immigration enforcement officers to 
do their job.
  We have seen this repeatedly with the Obama administration. President 
Obama has illegally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants 
with no statutory authorization whatsoever, even though, before his 
reelection, the President assured the American people he couldn't do so 
without an act of Congress. As President Obama said, when asked whether 
he could grant amnesty, ``I am not an emperor.''

[[Page S7315]]

  Well, I agree with President Obama. But yet, just a few months after 
saying he couldn't do this because he was not an emperor, apparently he 
discovered he was an emperor, because he did precisely what he 
acknowledged he lacked the constitutional authority to do.
  Although the administration today claims to be focusing its resources 
on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, it has adopted a 
policy where many illegal immigrants that the administration deems to 
be low-priority criminals will not be detained and deported but will be 
released back into our communities.
  Remarkably, in the year 2013 the Obama administration released from 
detention roughly 36,000 convicted criminal aliens who were actually 
awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. These criminal aliens 
were responsible for 193 homicide convictions. They were responsible 
for 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 1,075 
aggravated assault convictions, and 16,070 drunk driving convictions. 
All of this was on top of the additional 68,000 illegal immigrants with 
criminal convictions that the Federal Government encountered in 2013 
but never took into custody for deportation. Dwell on those numbers for 
a moment.
  In 1 year, the Obama administration releases over 104,000 criminal 
illegal aliens, people who have come into this country illegally who 
have additional criminal convictions--murderers, rapists, thieves, 
drunk drivers.
  One wonders what the administration says to the mother of a child 
lost to a murderer released by the Obama administration because they 
will not enforce the laws. One wonders what the Obama administration 
says to the child of a man killed by a drunk driver released by the 
Obama administration because they will not enforce our immigration 
laws.
  While this administration's refusal to enforce the laws is bad 
enough, the scandalously poor enforcement of our immigration laws is 
made much, much worse by the lawless actions of the roughly 340 so-
called sanctuary jurisdictions across the country. Although these 
jurisdictions are more than happy--eager, even--to take Federal 
taxpayer dollars, they go out of their way to obstruct and impede 
Federal immigration enforcement by adopting policies that prohibit 
their law enforcement officers from cooperating with Federal officers. 
Some of the jurisdictions even refuse to honor requests from the 
Federal Government to temporarily hold a criminal alien until Federal 
officers can take custody of the individual. Not only are these 
sanctuary policies an affront to the rule of law, but they are 
extremely dangerous.
  According to a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies, 
between January 1 and September 30, 2014--just a 9-month period--
sanctuary jurisdictions released 9,295 alien offenders who the Federal 
Government was seeking to deport. That is roughly 1,000 offenders a 
month that sanctuary jurisdictions released to the people. Now, of 
those 9,295, 62 percent had prior criminal histories or other public 
safety issues. Amazingly, to underscore just how dangerous this is to 
the citizenry, 2,320 of those criminal offenders were rearrested within 
the 9-month period for committing new crimes after they had already 
been released by the sanctuary jurisdiction. If that doesn't embody 
lawlessness, it is difficult to imagine what does--jurisdictions that 
are releasing over and over criminal illegal aliens, many of them 
violent criminal illegal aliens, and exposing the citizens who live at 
home to additional public safety risk, to additional terrorist risk.
  This same study found that the Federal Government was unable to 
reapprehend the vast majority of the alien offenders released by the 
sanctuary jurisdictions--69 percent as of last year. Even Homeland 
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that these sanctuary 
policies are ``unacceptable.'' ``It is counterproductive to public 
safety,'' he said, ``to have this level of resistance to working with 
our immigration enforcement personnel.''
  I am thrilled to hear the Secretary of Homeland Security say so out 
loud. I assume that means that the Obama administration will be 
supporting the legislation before this body. After all, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security says it is ``unacceptable,'' and that ``it is 
counterproductive to public safety.'' Yet, sadly, the Obama 
administration is not supporting the legislation before this body.
  Indeed, it has taken the tragic and terrible death of Kate Steinle to 
galvanize action here in Washington. Kate died in the arms of her 
father on a San Francisco pier after being fatally shot by an illegal 
alien who had several felony convictions and had been deported from the 
United States multiple times. Her death is heartbreaking.
  In the Senate Judiciary Committee we had the opportunity to hear from 
Kate Steinle's family. The heartbreak is even more appalling because 
Kate's killer had been released from custody and not turned over to the 
Federal Government to be deported because of San Francisco's sanctuary 
policy.
  The city of San Francisco is proudly a sanctuary city. They say to 
illegal immigrants across the country and across the world: Come to San 
Francisco. We will protect you from Federal immigration laws. We, the 
elected democratic leaders of this city, welcome illegal immigrants, 
including violent criminal illegal immigrants such as the murderer who 
took Kate Steinle's life.
  These policies are inexcusable. They are a threat to the public 
safety of the American people, and they need to end. That is why I am 
proud to be one of the original cosponsors of the Stop Sanctuary 
Policies and Protect Americans Act, which strips certain Federal funds, 
especially community development block grants, from jurisdictions that 
maintain these lawless policies. If these jurisdictions insist on 
making it more difficult to remove criminal aliens from our 
communities, then these Federal dollars should go instead to 
jurisdictions that will actually cooperate with the Federal Government, 
that are willing to enforce the law rather than aid and abet the 
criminals. It makes no sense to continue sending Federal money to local 
governments that intentionally make it more difficult and costly for 
the Federal Government to do its job.
  But this bill doesn't just address sanctuary jurisdictions. It also 
addresses the problem of illegal immigrants who, like Kate Steinle's 
killer, are deported but illegally reenter the country, which is a 
felony. This class of illegal aliens has a special disregard and 
disdain for our Nation's laws, and too often these offenders also have 
serious rap sheets.

  In 2012, just over a quarter of the illegal aliens apprehended by 
Border Patrol had prior deportation orders. That is an astounding 
99,420 illegal aliens. Of the illegal reentry offenders who were 
actually prosecuted in fiscal year 2014--that is just 16,556 
offenders--a fraction of those committed a felony. The majority of 
those who were prosecuted had extensive or recent criminal histories, 
and many were dangerous criminals. Even though the majority of 
offenders had serious criminal records, the average prison sentence was 
just 17 months, down from an average of 22 months in 2008.
  In fact, more than a quarter of illegal reentry offenders received a 
sentence below the guidelines range because the government sponsored 
the low sentence. Because we are failing to adequately deter illegal 
aliens who have already been deported from illegally reentering the 
country, I introduced Kate's Law in the Senate.
  I wish to thank Senators Vitter and Grassley for working with me to 
incorporate elements of Kate's Law into this bill. I also wish to 
recognize and thank all of the original cosponsors who joined me in 
this bill--Senators Barrasso, Cornyn, Isakson, Johnson, Perdue, Rubio, 
Sullivan, and Toomey.
  Because of this bill, any illegal alien who illegally reenters the 
United States and has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior 
illegal reentry convictions will face a mandatory sentence of 5 years 
in prison. We must send the message that defiance of our laws will no 
longer be tolerated, whether it is by the sanctuary cities themselves 
or by the illegal reentry offenders who they harbor.
  The problem of illegal immigration in this country will never be 
solved until we demonstrate to the American people that we are serious 
about securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws and until 
we have a President who is willing to and, in fact, committed to 
actually enforcing the laws and securing the borders.

[[Page S7316]]

  This bill is just a small step, but at least it is a step in the 
right direction. Yet there will be two consequences from the vote this 
afternoon. First, it will be an opportunity for our friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle to declare to the country on whose side 
they stand.
  When they are campaigning for reelection, more than a few Democratic 
Senators tell the voters they support securing the borders. More than a 
few Democratic Senators tell the voters: Of course we shouldn't be 
releasing criminal illegal aliens. More than a few Democratic Senators 
claim to have no responsibility for the 104,000 criminal illegal aliens 
released by the Obama administration in the year 2013.
  These Senators claim to have no responsibility for the murder of Kate 
Steinle, invited to San Francisco by that city's sanctuary city policy. 
This vote today will be a moment of clarity. No Democratic Senator will 
be able to go and tell his or her constituents: I oppose sanctuary 
cities. I support securing the border if they vote today in favor of 
sending Federal taxpayer funds to subsidize the lawlessness of 
sanctuary cities.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from families who had 
lost loved ones to violent criminal illegal aliens--one after the other 
after the other. We heard about children who were sexually abused and 
murdered by violent illegal aliens. We heard from family members who 
have lost loved ones to drunk drivers illegally in this country.
  During the hearing, I asked the senior Obama administration official 
for immigration enforcement how she could look into the eyes of those 
family members and justify releasing murderers, rapists, and drunk 
drivers over and over and over again.
  Indeed, at that hearing I asked the head of immigration enforcement 
for the Obama administration: How many murderers did the Obama 
administration release this week? Her answer: I don't know. I asked 
her: How many rapists did the Obama administration release this week? 
Her answer: I don't know. How many drunk drivers? I don't know.
  None of us should be satisfied with that answer or with a President 
and administration that refuse to enforce the laws and are willfully 
and repeatedly releasing violent criminal illegal aliens into our 
communities and endangering the lives of our families and children.
  This vote today is a simple decision for every Democratic Senator: 
With whom do you stand? Do you stand with the violent criminal illegal 
aliens who are being released over and over again? Because mind you, a 
vote no is to say the next time the next murderer--like Kate Steinle's 
murderer--comes in, we should not enforce the laws, and we shouldn't 
have a mandatory 5-year prison sentence. Instead, we should continue 
sanctuary cities that welcome and embrace him until perhaps it is our 
family members who lose their lives.
  It is my hope that in this moment of clarity the Democratic members 
of this body will decide they stand with the American people and not 
with the violent criminal illegal aliens.

  It is worth noting, by the way, the standard rhetorical device that 
so many Democratic Senators use is to say: Well, not all immigrants are 
criminals. Well, of course they are not. I am the son of an immigrant 
who came legally to this country 58 years ago. We are a nation of 
immigrants, of men and women fleeing oppression and seeking freedom, 
but this bill doesn't deal with all immigrants. It deals with one 
specific subset of immigrants: criminal illegal aliens. It deals with 
those who come to this country illegally and also have additional 
criminal convictions, whether it is homicide, sexual assault, 
kidnapping, battery, or drunk driving. If it is the Democrats' position 
for partisan reasons that they would rather stand with violent criminal 
illegal aliens, that is a sad testament on where one of the two major 
political parties in this country stands today. I suspect the voters 
who elect them would be more than a little surprised at how that jibes 
with the rhetoric they use on the campaign trail.
  If, as many observers predict, Democratic Senators choose to value 
partisan loyalty to the Obama White House over protecting the lives of 
the children who will be murdered by violent criminal illegal aliens in 
sanctuary cities if this body does not act, and if they vote on a 
party-line vote, as many observers have predicted, that will provide a 
moment of clarity. I will also suggest that it underscores the need for 
Republican leadership to bring this issue up again--and not in the 
context where Democrats can blithely block it and obstruct any 
meaningful reforms to protect our safety, secure the border, enforce 
the law, and stop violent illegal criminal aliens from threatening our 
safety--in the context of a must-pass bill and attach it to legislation 
that will actually pass in law.
  I am very glad we are voting on this bill this week. That is a good 
and positive step. It is one of the few things in the last 10 months we 
have voted on that actually responds to the concerns of the men and 
women who elected us.
  I salute leadership for bringing up this vote, but if a party-line 
vote blocks it, then the next step is not simply to have a vote. The 
next step is to attach this legislation to must-pass legislation and to 
actually fix the problem. Leadership loves to speak of what they call 
governing, and in Washington governing is always set at least an octave 
lower. Well, when it comes to stopping sanctuary cities and protecting 
our safety, we need some governing. We need to actually fix the problem 
rather than have a show vote.
  My first entreaty is to my Democratic friends across the aisle. 
Regardless of areas where we differ on partisan politics, this should 
be an easy vote. Do you stand with the men and women of your State or 
do you stand with violent criminal illegal aliens? We will find out in 
just a couple of hours.
  My second entreaty is to Republican leadership. If Democrats are 
partisans first rather than protecting the men and women they 
represent, then it is up to Republican leadership to attach this to a 
must-pass bill and actually pass it into law and solve the problem--not 
to talk about it, but to do it. It is my hope that is what all of us do 
together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against a bill 
that is misguided, stands against everything that America represents, 
and suggests that it will protect Americans when, in fact, it will 
protect Americans less.
  From our founding, our principles have been guided by core values of 
equality, fairness, freedom, and tolerance, and in turn, we have 
honored the many ways that immigrants have contributed to this country 
since its inception. Yet the other side of the aisle is once again 
engaged in a stubborn, relentless, and shameful assault against 
immigrants.
  As the son of immigrants myself, I find it hard not to take offense 
at the anti-immigrant rhetoric we are hearing from their Presidential 
candidates. It is unacceptable, deplorable, and should be renounced by 
every American. We are witnessing the most overtly nativist, xenophobic 
campaign in modern U.S. history. We have hit a new low with the 
extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that diminishes immigrants' 
contributions to American history and particularly demonizes the Latino 
community by labeling Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals.
  The Republican leading in the polls actually launched his 
Presidential candidacy by attacking immigrants, saying:

       They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're 
     rapists.

  Please spare me. It is senseless and false. Yet some of my Senate 
colleagues have decided to jump on the GOP's fearmongering bandwagon, 
seeking to blindly stamp millions of hard-working, law-abiding 
immigrant families as criminals and rapists, and that is why we are 
here today. That anti-immigrant rhetoric has made its way to the Senate 
floor courtesy of Donald Trump and some Republicans eager to capitalize 
on this rhetoric for their own political gain.
  This is nothing more than another offensive anti-immigrant bill, 
another effort to demonize those who risk everything for a better life 
for themselves and their children, those who were left with no choice 
but to flee persecution and violence or else face a certain death. That 
is what we are debating here today. Those are the individuals this 
legislation seeks to brand as criminals.

[[Page S7317]]

  This bill does nothing more than instigate fear and divide our 
Nation. Supporters of this bill may say that it is in response to a 
tragedy such as what happened in San Francisco, and what happened in 
San Francisco was a tragedy. Such tragedies will not be prevented by 
this legislation but by real immigration reform. I am happy to have 
that debate--a real debate, an honest and compassionate debate, a 
debate the country deserves--but that is not what is happening in this 
bill.
  The title of the bill asserts that it will protect Americans. Well, 
to be clear, this bill will not protect Americans because it second 
guesses decisions made by local law enforcement around the country 
about how to best police their own communities and ensure public 
safety.
  What is worse, this bill mandates local law enforcement to take on 
Federal immigration enforcement duties by threatening to strip away 
funding from as many as 300 local jurisdictions, from programs such as 
the community development block grant, community-oriented policing 
services, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. These are 
programs that directly help our towns and communities. The CDBG Program 
grows local economies and improves the quality of life for families. It 
has assisted hundreds of millions of people with low and moderate 
incomes, stabilized neighborhoods, provided affordable housing, and 
improved the safety and quality of life of American citizens. The Cops 
on the Beat grant funds salaries and benefits for police officers who 
serve us every day by keeping our communities safe, and they deserve 
better than being dragged into partisan politics.
  My colleague from Louisiana seeks to strip funding from localities 
that undertake the balancing of public safety considerations and refuse 
to act as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But this bill 
goes even further than that. This bill isn't content with taking 
discretion away from local communities; it takes it away from the 
judicial branch. It adds new mandatory minimums when, as a nation, we 
are trying to move away from that approach. The new mandatory minimum 
sentences would have a crippling financial impact with no evidence that 
they would actually deter future violations of the law. They could cost 
American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that 
deserves a serious, thoughtful debate in the Judiciary Committee, with 
expert testimony on whether this really makes us safer or whether we 
are throwing away hard-earned taxpayer dollars. But we won't even get 
that debate because this bill was fast-tracked as a Republican 
priority, and it didn't even go through the regular committee process.
  The U.S. Senate cannot nurture an environment that demonizes and 
dehumanizes Latinos and the entire immigrant community. By threatening 
to strip CDBG funding from cities, Senate Republicans are saying that 
it is OK to withhold funding from economically vulnerable American 
citizens, senior citizens, veterans, and children to promote their 
anti-immigrant agenda and that it is OK to cut COPS funding, which has 
long promoted public safety through community policing.
  A one-size-fits-all approach that punishes State and local law 
enforcement agencies that engage in well-established community policing 
practices just doesn't make sense. Local communities and local law 
enforcement are better judges than Congress of what keeps their 
communities safe. Police need cooperation from the community to do 
their jobs. That is why over the past several years hundreds of 
localities across our Nation, with the support of some of the toughest 
police chiefs and sheriffs, have limited their involvement in Federal 
immigration enforcement out of concerns for community safety and 
violations of the Fourth Amendment. They need witnesses and victims to 
be able to come forward without fear of recrimination because of their 
immigrant status, and fear of deportation should never be a barrier to 
reporting crime or seeking help from the police. This fear undermines 
trust between law enforcement and the communities they protect and 
creates a chilling effect.
  These policies were put in place because local jurisdictions don't 
want to do ICE's job for them. Effective policing cannot be achieved by 
forcing an unwanted role upon the police by threat of sanctions or 
withholding assistance, especially at a time when law enforcement 
agencies are strengthening police-community relations.
  Furthermore, why do my Republican colleagues believe they know better 
than the local towns and citizens who live this day in and day out? 
They talk endlessly about decentralizing government, giving the power 
back to local communities, but not this time. It is no wonder that this 
bill is opposed by law enforcement, including the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, immigrant and Latino rights organizations, faith groups, and 
domestic violence groups, among others.
  This bill is not a real solution to our broken immigration system. 
The bottom line is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We 
passed bipartisan legislation in 2013, but we haven't had a real 
discussion in Congress for over 2 years.
  A recent Pew poll found that 74 percent of Americans overall said 
that undocumented immigrants should be given a pathway to stay legally. 
That included 66 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, 
and 80 percent of Democrats who support a pathway to legal status for 
undocumented immigrants. This bipartisan support is not new.
  Comprehensive immigration reform, previously passed in the Senate, 
brought millions of people out of the shadows who had to prove their 
identity, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, and provide an 
earned path to citizenship so ICE could focus on the people who were 
true public safety threats. The bill also increased penalties for 
repeat border crossers. It included $46 billion in new resources, 
including no fewer than 38,000 trained, full-time, active Border Patrol 
agents deployed and stationed along the southern border. It increased 
the real GDP of our country by more than 3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 
percent in 2033--an increase of roughly $700 billion in the first 10 
years and $1.4 trillion in the second 10. It would have reduced the 
Federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and by another 
$700 billion in the following. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit 
spending reductions by giving 11 million people a pathway to 
citizenship. That was a real solution. That is the type of reform we 
need. That, in fact, is the opportunity that existed. Unfortunately, 
the other body, the House of Representatives, did not even have a vote. 
To the extent that Americans are less safe, it is because of their 
inaction that we are less safe today.
  Tragedies should not be used to scapegoat immigrants. They should not 
be used to erode trust between law enforcement and our communities. We 
cannot let fear drive our policymaking.
  So let's actively and collectively resist the demagoguery that 
threatens to shape American policymaking for the worse. I believe a 
vote to proceed is a vote against the Latino and immigrant communities 
of our country, and I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can reject it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss sanctuary cities.
  Two women, Kate Steinle and Marilyn Pharis, were killed in California 
over the summer, both allegedly by undocumented individuals with 
criminal records.
  The suspect in each case had recently been released from local 
custody without notice to Federal immigration officials, which could 
have resulted in those individuals being removed from the country 
instead of being released.
  I believe these murders could have been prevented if there were open 
channels of communication between local law enforcement and Federal 
immigration authorities about dangerous individuals.
  In both cases, those lines of communication broke down, and two women 
died.
  In my view, local law enforcement agencies should be required to 
notify Federal authorities--if such notification is requested--that 
they plan to release a dangerous individual, such as a convicted felon.
  This is a reasonable solution that would target those criminals who 
shouldn't be released back onto the street.

[[Page S7318]]

  While I do support mandatory communication between local, State, and 
Federal officials, I do not support the bill before us today.
  The bill we will soon be voting on would target all undocumented 
immigrants for deportation.
  It would divert already stretched local law enforcement resources 
away from dangerous criminals and from policing in their own 
communities. I do not support such an action.
  This bill also includes a detention requirement that goes beyond 
dangerous individuals--it would cover any immigrant sought to be 
detained.
  This is a standard that could be abused in another administration, 
and it is potentially a huge unfunded mandate to impose on States and 
localities.
  In addition to being an unfunded mandate, the bill would make drastic 
cuts to police departments, sheriffs departments, and local community 
programs.
  Specifically it would cut the COPS Hiring Program; the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, known as SCAAP; and the Community Development 
Block Grant Program.
  Last year, 21 California jurisdictions received $13.2 million in COPS 
hiring grants to hire police officers.
  California also received $57 million in SCAAP funds to help cover 
costs of holding undocumented immigrants.
  And California communities received $356.9 million under the 
Community Development Block Grant Program.
  As a former mayor, I know how important these funds are to local 
communities.
  The bill would also impose lengthy Federal prison sentences on all 
undocumented immigrants.
  This would include mothers crossing the border to see their children.
  It would include agricultural workers who are vital to California's 
economy.
  It would include other essentially innocent individuals who simply 
want to make a better life for themselves and their families.
  In my view, this goes much too far, and I cannot support it.
  I would, however, like to talk further about the murders of Kate 
Steinle and Marilyn Pharis and what I believe should be done to protect 
public safety.
  Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman, was shot and killed in July while 
walking along San Francisco's Pier 14 with her father.
  The suspected shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had a long 
criminal record.
  He had seven felony convictions, including one for possession of 
heroin and another for manufacturing narcotics.
  He had also been removed from the country five times.
  The chain of events that led to Kate's murder began on March 23, when 
San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi requested that Lopez-
Sanchez be transferred from Federal prison to San Francisco.
  The sheriff's request was based on a 20-year-old marijuana possession 
warrant.
  On March 26, Lopez-Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County jail.
  However, the 20-year-old marijuana charge was quickly dropped, and 
Lopez-Sanchez was later released.
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement had asked Sheriff Mirkarimi to 
let the agency know when Lopez-Sanchez would be released. That did not 
happen.
  A simple phone call would have been enough, but Sheriff Mirkarimi 
failed to notify Federal officials.
  In July, only a few months after his release, Lopez-Sanchez shot and 
killed Kate Steinle.
  In fact, not only did the sheriff fail to notify, the failure was a 
consequence of a deliberate policy.
  Just weeks before his office requested the transfer of Lopez-Sanchez, 
the sheriff adopted a policy forbidding his own deputies from notifying 
immigration officials.
  The policy specifically states that sheriff department staff shall 
not provide release dates or times to immigration authorities.
  Let me be clear: this isn't State law or even San Francisco law. This 
is the sheriff's own policy.
  I believe this policy is wrong, and I have called on the sheriff to 
change it. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has made the same request.
  On July 24, Marilyn Pharis was brutally attacked with a hammer and 
sexually assaulted in her home by two suspects.
  The 64-year-old Air Force veteran died in the hospital from her 
injuries a week later.
  One of the individuals charged with this heinous crime is a 20-year-
old U.S. citizen named Jose Fernando Villagomez.
  The other is a 29-year-old undocumented immigrant named Victor 
Aureliano Martinez Ramirez.
  According to ICE, Martinez Ramirez was arrested in May 2014, but he 
had no prior felony convictions or deportations.
  He was subject to what is called an ICE detainer request, asking the 
local jurisdiction to hold him until ICE could pick him up.
  The local jurisdiction did not hold the suspect, nor did they notify 
ICE of his release.
  In the ensuing months, Martinez Ramirez accumulated multiple 
misdemeanor convictions, including possession of methamphetamine and 
battery.
  One of his convictions included a protection order requiring him to 
stay away from a particular individual.
  On July 20, he pleaded guilty to additional misdemeanor charges of 
possessing a dagger and drug paraphernalia.
  He was sentenced to 30 days, but that wasn't to begin until October 
31. He was released from custody and, 4 days later, allegedly attacked, 
raped, and killed Marilyn Pharis in her own home.
  I believe these two cases demonstrate the need for better 
communication between local, State, and Federal authorities before a 
dangerous individual with a criminal record is released.
  When our committee was set to markup an earlier bill from Senator 
Vitter, I prepared a simple amendment to ensure such communication 
happens. That markup was cancelled.
  I'd like to describe this approach now.
  First, it would require notification by a State or local agency of 
the impending release of certain dangerous individuals, if ICE requests 
such notification.
  It would apply to individuals where there is probable cause to 
believe they are aliens who are removable from the country and who pose 
a threat to the community.
  Immigration offenses would be covered only if the individual had 
actually received more than 1 year in prison, which would happen for a 
person with a significant criminal history.
  The amendment I prepared would not include harmful cuts to law 
enforcement and community programs, which I believe are unnecessary and 
unwise.
  The legal precedents from the Supreme Court show that Congress can 
impose a reporting requirement on a State or local government, without 
threatening harmful funding cuts.
  That is the approach I would take--I believe it would protect public 
safety without harming otherwise law-abiding immigrants or State or 
local law enforcement.
  Before I conclude, I'd like to remind my colleagues that this is not 
a choice between being pro-immigrant or pro-criminal.
  I am pro-immigrant. Immigrants make a tremendous contribution to this 
country and to my State.
  They work some of the most difficult jobs, from agriculture to 
construction to hospitality.
  They are part of the fabric of our country.
  I, myself, am the daughter of an immigrant.
  I strongly support comprehensive immigration reform, which I think is 
the only long-term solution to many of these problems.
  I also support the President's executive actions to eliminate the 
threat of deportation for young people who have been raised here, as 
well as the parents of American citizens.
  And I agree with immigrant advocates who want to prevent families 
from being separated because of a minor infraction like a broken 
taillight.
  The position I support strikes a balance.
  It would keep dangerous individuals off the street, while protecting 
otherwise law-abiding immigrants who are just here to work and provide 
their children with a better future.

[[Page S7319]]

  I believe the deaths of Kate Steinle and Marilyn Pharis could have 
been prevented.
  I believe we can and should fix the problems that led to their deaths 
by requiring that local officials notify Federal officials before they 
release dangerous criminals, if asked to do so.
  I oppose Senator Vitter's bill, which would sweep up otherwise law-
abiding immigrants and divert resources away from where they are most 
needed.
  We should focus our efforts on dangerous criminals, and I hope that 
when we again take up comprehensive immigration reform, that is what 
happens.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco 
by a convicted felon who illegally crossed the border multiple times 
was horrific. It left a family heartbroken and shocked our community, 
our State, and our Nation.
  We cannot allow a tragedy like this to happen again.
  We should never give sanctuary to serious and violent felons, but 
this Republican bill is not the answer.
  Getting rid of sanctuary cities will not reduce crime--in fact, it 
will only increase crime and make us less safe.
  That is why this bill is opposed by law enforcement, immigrant rights 
organizations, faith groups, domestic violence groups, labor unions, 
housing and community development organizations, mayors of California's 
biggest cities, and the National League of Cities--as well as many 
others.
  The truth is that sanctuary cities keep our neighborhoods safe by 
promoting trust and cooperation between police officers and immigrant 
communities. And that trust is essential to protecting all of us.
  Let me give a quick example.
  A few years ago in Seattle, more than two dozen Asian women were 
sexually assaulted in the same neighborhood over a 2-year period.
  Because of the strong relationship between police and the community--
a community where police are generally prohibited from asking about 
immigration status--many of the immigrant victims were willing to come 
forward and share information with the police, which led to the 
perpetrator's arrest.
  Don't just take my word for it--listen to what law enforcement in our 
communities say about the importance of sanctuary city policies.
  As former San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis said: ``We have been 
fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the 
willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if they saw us 
as part of the immigration services, I just don't know if they'd do 
that anymore.''
  As Ohio Chief of Police Richard Biehl explained: ``Sanctuary policies 
and practices are not designed to harbor criminals. On the contrary, 
they exist to support community policing, ensuring that the community 
at large--including immigrant communities--trusts State and local law 
enforcement and feels secure in reporting criminal conduct.''
  Ending sanctuary policies would keep the voices of immigrant victims 
and witnesses quiet.
  That means crimes would go unreported, cases would go unsolved, and 
dangerous criminals would go unpunished.
  Ending these policies would actually give sanctuary to dangerous 
criminals because, without the help of immigrant communities, these 
violent offenders will continue to threaten our safety.
  We know this because there are many places in this country where 
immigrants do not feel safe coming forward.
  As Texas Sheriff Lupe Valdez said: ``A lot of undocumented 
individuals came from areas where they can't trust the police. The 
uniform has pushed them into the shadows. Good law enforcement cannot 
be carried out this way.''
  Just listen to some of the immigrants who were too terrified to come 
forward and report horrific crimes.
  Take it from Maria, an immigrant survivor of serious domestic 
violence, who fled from Texas to Indiana, where her abuser tracked her 
down.
  When he came to her house at midnight, she was too afraid to call 
911--fearing she could be deported--so she called her lawyer over and 
over. Because it was the middle of the night, her attorney was not at 
work and came in the next morning to a series of frantic messages left 
on her voicemail.
  Ultimately, Maria's abuser was not able to get into the house, but 
her life was in danger because she thought that law enforcement wasn't 
a safe option.
  Take it from Cecilia, a young Guatemalan girl in Colorado.
  Cecilia was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 5. Her 
parents, undocumented immigrants, learned about the abuse, but they 
were terrified to report the crime to the police because they were told 
by family and friends that the police could not be trusted. They were 
told that, if they came forward, they would be reported to immigration 
and deported.
  A year later, the same perpetrator sexually abused another young 
child. It wasn't until the father of that child contacted Cecilia's 
parents that they decided to go to the police together, and the 
perpetrator was caught and prosecuted.
  But because of their initial fear of reporting the crime, another 
child was harmed.
  So why would we pass a bill that could discourage victims or 
witnesses from coming forward for help?
  Why would we pass a bill that would make it harder for law 
enforcement to solve crimes and keep our communities safe?
  This Republican bill is also dangerous because it would cut off COPS 
grants that help communities protect residents by hiring officers.
  We should be doing everything we can to help local police 
departments--not take away their ability to put officers on the street.
  Republicans also want to punish communities by taking away their 
community development block grants, which would hurt thousands of 
working families who rely on these funds for safe, affordable housing 
and other critical services.
  This GOP bill would also take away SCAAP funding, which reimburses 
State and local governments for the costs of incarcerating undocumented 
immigrants. This funding has been repeatedly slashed, and it has never 
been enough--especially in my State of California, which spends nearly 
$1 billion a year on these incarceration costs.
  These cuts would have devastating impact on States and local 
communities.
  Now, there are some California communities reviewing their specific 
policies and forging cooperation agreements with Federal immigration 
officials--and I think that's a good thing.
  I believe that State and local officials should examine their 
policies to ensure that they are preserving the trust that law 
enforcement has built in our communities, while keeping serious and 
violent felons off our streets.
  Unfortunately, this Republican bill would do the exact opposite--it 
would undermine the trust that has been developed between police and 
immigrant communities, and it would set back efforts to solve cases and 
put dangerous criminals behind bars.
  The real question is: Why are we even considering this bill?
  Why isn't Congress passing the bipartisan comprehensive immigration 
reform bill that the Senate passed more than 2 years ago?
  That bipartisan bill would make our country safer by adding 20,000 
more Border Patrol agents; increasing surveillance; and hiring 
additional prosecutors and judges to boost prosecutions of illegal 
border crossings.
  The measure would also make clear that serious or violent felons will 
never get a pathway to citizenship or legal status.
  And the bill would bring families out of the shadows--so that they 
don't fear being deported or separated from their families . . . so 
they feel comfortable cooperating with police and reporting crimes in 
their communities.
  Let's make our communities safer by passing real immigration reform 
and by defeating this misguided Republican bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from New York.


                         Donnelly Confirmation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to discuss the bill on the 
floor in a minute, but first I wish to take a moment to congratulate 
the newly confirmed district judge for the Eastern District of New 
York, Ann Donnelly. She just passed the Senate with a vote of 95 to 2--
nearly unanimous and deservedly so.

[[Page S7320]]

  There are few more qualified for a Federal judgeship than Ann 
Donnelly. She has dedicated her life to public service, having spent a 
quarter decade as a prosecutor in the prestigious New York County 
District Attorney's Office under Bob Morgenthau. She accumulated a host 
of awards there and rose through the leadership ranks of the office. 
Then, in 2009, she became a State court judge in New York, hearing a 
wide variety of cases. She has a stellar academic record, having 
graduated from the University of Michigan and Ohio State University 
School of Law.
  I could tick off more of her accomplishments, and the list would be 
long, but Judge Donnelly is more than a brilliant resume. I know her 
well. She is at her core a kind, thoughtful, and compassionate person. 
Anyone who knows her or who has interacted with her even briefly knows 
she is fair, open-minded, and has exactly the kind of temperament that 
will make her an exceptional Federal judge.
  I congratulate Ann Donnelly and her family--particularly her mother--
on her confirmation. I know her mother is so proud of her. It is a 
milestone day in her career and a bright day for the Eastern District 
of New York.
  Mr. President, today the Senate will turn its attention to a divisive 
immigration bill that has no hope of becoming law. Today's vote won't 
be on a comprehensive bill, as was the one the Senate passed 2 years 
ago--one that secures our borders, provides a jolt to the economy, 
provides a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding 
immigrants who pay their taxes to get right with the law.
  I want to be clear with the American people on this. Today's vote is 
nothing but a political show vote. Senator Vitter knows his bill has no 
chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law. As stated by my 
friend the Republican junior Senator from Nevada--here is what he said: 
``You know we have votes because people are running for president, so I 
am not surprised we have votes because people are running for 
governor.'' No other sentence sums it up better as to what a waste of 
time this is, and that is to say nothing about the substance of the 
bill, which has drawn opposition from nearly every important interest 
group. A broad coalition of major law enforcement groups, faith groups, 
labor, cities, elected officials, housing advocates, and immigrant 
rights groups oppose this bill. I suspect there are Members of the 
Republican caucus who oppose many parts of it. Why? Because it is a 
bill that would jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in the name 
of punishing immigrants and cities where they live.
  This bill would strip away community development block grants, 
community COPS grants to hire more cops, and SCAAP, a proposal that 
funds jurisdictions that are doing what many on the other side want 
them to do by locking up unauthorized immigrants who commit crimes. 
Everyone believes that if a person commits a serious crime unrelated to 
being an immigrant--not like crossing the border or forging a document 
but a serious crime--law enforcement should be required to cooperate 
and those folks should be deported, plain and simple. But in the name 
of trying to help law enforcement, this bill hurts law enforcement 
because it will take away so many of the grants law enforcement needs. 
It will take away the grants that help create a way of incarcerating 
those who commit serious crimes.
  All of these cuts would come while also astronomically increasing the 
size of prison population and related costs, without decreasing the 
deficit by a single dime. This will put a huge burden on our State and 
local taxpayers. Their taxes would go way up if this bill were passed 
into law and implemented.
  To be clear, the death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco was 
tragic. It never should have happened. I mourn not only her family but 
the family of any American killed in a senseless act of gun violence. 
For people like the killer of Ms. Steinle, law enforcement should 
cooperate with the Federal authorities and deport those folks.
  This is not the way to exercise better law enforcement. Punishing 
cities and communities and yanking Federal funding from cops will not 
get us to a better immigration system or safeguard our communities.
  The bill we passed in 2013, which I was proud to author with a number 
of Democratic and Republican colleagues, is the opposite of this bill 
in every way. Our bill was supported by a broad coalition of groups, 
from business, labor, faith communities, immigrant communities, and law 
enforcement. Our bill paid for itself and went on to decrease the 
deficit by $160 billion over 10 years and to increase GDP by 3.3 
percent. Our bill secured the border--this bill doesn't do that--not 
only with more resources and staff but by cracking down on repeat 
border crossers and those who overstay their visas. It did it in a 
smart way. The goal of our friend from Louisiana isn't accomplished in 
his bill, but it is in comprehensive immigration reform--the goal of 
making sure those who are repeat border crossers and those who overstay 
their visas are dealt with properly.
  Our bill paved a tough but fair pathway to citizenship, shielding 
law-abiding immigrants from deportation, fostering trust with law 
enforcement, and exposing the criminals in their communities who would 
rather live in the shadows.
  Our bill was a bipartisan compromise. There is no compromise here. I 
daresay many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they 
look at provisions in this bill, do not like them. This is a show 
vote--a vote, as my Republican colleague from Nevada said, to help 
someone in his quest for political office.
  There are so many vitally important policy debates we could be 
turning to today. Instead, the Senate Republican leadership insists on 
leading us into this dark, divisive place for nothing more than 
political theater. Think of the urgent bipartisan issues we should be 
working on, including the debt ceiling. We are about to default because 
of the shenanigans going on on the other side. The Perkins Loan Program 
so that kids can go to college; the land and water conservation 
programs are expiring. The highway bill--we don't have a highway bill, 
yet we are doing this. And if we don't take action by the end of the 
year, millions of seniors will see a 52-percent increase in their 
Medicare bill. How many Americans would want us to do that and not the 
divisive show vote that has no chance of passing?

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Just as importantly, I beg 
my colleagues to join us on this side of the aisle in turning to a 
serious debate on comprehensive immigration reform--something they have 
so far refused to do.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The Senator is advised that the Senate is under an order to recess at 
this time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for such time as I may consume and that Senator Hirono be 
recognized following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 2146, the Stop 
Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which the Senate will 
vote on shortly and which our colleagues have been speaking about.
  First, I want to recognize and thank my colleagues for joining in 
this effort--Senator Vitter, Senator Grassley, Senator Cruz, and 
Senator Johnson--and introducing this very important bill. I can't 
believe the way it is being mischaracterized, and I will try to address 
some of those mischaracterizations.
  Let's be clear. This bill is about keeping our communities safe from 
violent crime. That is what it is about. It is necessary because of the 
sanctuary cities that we have across America.
  This is not a manufactured problem. This is a very real problem. 
There is one father who knows about it all too well. Jim Steinle was 
walking arm in arm with his daughter on a pier in San Francisco. 
Suddenly a gunman leaps out, opens fire, and hits Kate. She falls into 
her father's arms and pleads, ``Help me, dad,'' while she bleeds to 
death.
  What is so outrageous about this, among other things, is that the 
shooter never should have been on the pier that day, in the first 
place. He was an illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven 
felonies. He had been deported

[[Page S7321]]

five times, and there he is on the San Francisco pier, shooting and 
killing an innocent woman. It is more outrageous than that. Just 3 
months earlier, the Department of Homeland Security had asked the San 
Francisco Police Department, when they had picked up this man, to hold 
him until DHS officials could come and get him. They had made that 
specific request when this man was in the custody of the San Francisco 
Police Department, but San Francisco refused to cooperate. Knowing that 
DHS wanted them to hold this man for a short period of time until their 
agents could get there and take him into custody, having had that 
request from DHS, San Francisco said no, and they released him so he 
could then go out and commit a murder.
  Why in the world would they release a man such as this when DHS has 
asked them to hold him? It is because San Francisco is a sanctuary 
city. What that means is that it is the policy of the city of San 
Francisco--having commanded their local law enforcement, their police 
department--to not cooperate with Federal officials seeking to 
prosecute immigration issues. Even when they want to cooperate, they 
are forbidden from cooperating. Think about how absurd this is.
  If Federal officials had called the San Francisco Police Department 
about any other kind of crime--larceny, burglary, a trademark 
violation--they would have been happy to cooperate. They would have 
cooperated, in fact. But because the crime was related to illegal 
immigration, the San Francisco Police Department's hands were tied. The 
police were forced to release the man who would then go on and kill 
Kate Steinle. As a father of three young children, I can't even begin 
to think about the pain that the Steinles just went through, and what 
is so maddening is that it was entirely unnecessary.
  Sadly, this is not the only case, as you know. According to the 
Department of Homeland Security, during an 8-month period last year, 
sanctuary jurisdictions--cities and counties that have adopted this 
policy of noncooperation--have released over 8,000 illegal immigrants 
they had in their custody, and 1,800 of these were later arrested for 
criminal acts. This includes two cities that refused to hold 
individuals who had been arrested for child sexual abuse. In both cases 
the individuals were later arrested for sexually assaulting young 
children. This is how outrageous this has become.
  For the record, let me make it clear that I completely understand 
that the vast majority of immigrants would not commit these crimes. 
That is not what this is about. But the truth of the matter is that any 
large group of individuals is going to have a certain number of 
criminals within it. Of the 11 million people who are here illegally, 
some are inevitably violent criminals.
  The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act provides a 
solution to this in three parts. First, under our legislation sanctuary 
jurisdictions will lose certain Federal funds. If a city or county or 
municipality decides they will declare or forbid their law enforcement 
officials from cooperating and even sharing information with Federal 
Department of Homeland Security officials, they will lose some Federal 
funding.
  Second, this legislation includes Kate's Law. This provides for a 
mandatory minimum 5-year sentence for a person who reenters the United 
States illegally after having been convicted of an aggravated felony or 
having been convicted twice before of illegal reentry.
  Finally, there is the third part of this legislation. Across America 
dozens of municipalities that had been cooperating with Federal 
immigration officials have been forced to become sanctuary communities 
or counties because several Federal courts have held that local law 
enforcement may not cooperate when DHS asks them to hold an illegal 
immigrant. They maintain that there is not the statutory authority for 
local law enforcement to do so. Therefore, if the local police were to 
cooperate, as they should, they would be liable for damages, and this 
would apply even to dangerous criminal cases. We solve that problem by 
making it clear that when local law enforcement is acting in a fashion 
consistent with what DHS is requesting--what DHS has the authority to 
do themselves--then there would be no such legal liability.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues have said that we don't need this 
legislation and that all we need is greater cooperation between Federal 
and local law enforcement. Well, that is absolutely factually 
incorrect. It is not possible to have the level of cooperation that we 
need to have because of these court decisions, because the court 
decisions effectively are precluding the kind of cooperation that we 
need. That is why Congress needs to act.
  We need to make it clear that local law enforcement can in fact hold 
somebody that the Department of Homeland Security needs to have held, 
just as the Department of Homeland Security has that authority 
themselves. The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act 
provides a valid solution. It confirms that local law enforcement 
officers are allowed to cooperate when Federal officials ask them to 
hold illegal immigrants.
  It is carefully drafted to protect individual liberties. If an 
individual's civil liberties or constitutional rights are violated, 
than that individual can still file suit and can still seek a remedy, 
and that is as it should be. But this legislation to stop sanctuary 
policies act really should have very broad bipartisan support.
  Let's keep in mind the people we are talking about here. As a 
practical matter, the only cases in which this applies is that small 
subset of illegal immigrants who even the Obama administration wishes 
to hold for deportation--only that small subset of people that the 
Obama administration believes is dangerous enough to warrant removal. 
Really, we can't even have local law enforcement officials cooperate 
under those circumstances?
  President Obama's own Secretary of Homeland Security has declared 
that sanctuary cities are ``not acceptable.'' He has described them as 
``counterproductive to public safety.'' There is no real basis for 
voting no on this.
  Opponents have turned to misrepresenting this in many ways, but the 
facts are overwhelming.
  There are three national law enforcement groups that have written a 
powerful letter addressing some of the misrepresentations that have 
been made about this bill. They have reaffirmed their support for this 
bill. They include the National Sheriffs' Association, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 20, 2015.
     Senator David Vitter,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Chairman Chuck Grassley,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Ron Johnson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Pat Toomey,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Ted Cruz,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Vitter, Toomey, Grassley, Cruz, and Johnson: 
     On behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association, the National 
     Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Officers Association and the local, state, and 
     federal law enforcement officers we represent, we write to 
     reiterate out support for the Stop Sanctuary Policies and 
     Protect Americans Act (S.2146) and to correct some 
     misrepresentations regarding the Act.
       As the law enforcement officers on the front lines working 
     to protect our communities, we know firsthand the challenges 
     facing police officers. We know when a bill makes our jobs 
     more difficult and when a bill makes our jobs easier.
       We have been surprised to hear some misrepresent this bill 
     and its effects on law enforcement.
       For example, some have claimed that the Stop Sanctuary 
     Policies Act will ``requir[e] state and local law enforcement 
     to carry out the federal government's immigration enforcement 
     responsibilities,'' and thus ``the federal government would 
     be substituting its judgment for the judgment of state and 
     local law enforcement agencies.'' Nothing in the Stop 
     Sanctuary Policies Act requires local law enforcement ``to 
     carry out federal immigration responsibilities.'' Removing 
     illegal immigrants remains the exclusive province of the 
     federal government. The bill simply withholds certain federal 
     funds from jurisdictions that prohibit their local law 
     enforcement officers from cooperating with

[[Page S7322]]

     federal officials in the limited circumstance of honoring an 
     immigration detainer. It is politicians in sanctuary 
     jurisdictions who, by tying the hands of local law 
     enforcement, are ``substituting [their] judgment for the 
     judgment of state and local law enforcement.''
       Others have resorted to scare tactics, warning that that 
     S.2146 will lead to the deportation of those who report 
     crimes to law enforcement. This is simply false. The bill 
     provides that if a jurisdiction has a policy that it will not 
     inquire about the immigration status of crime victims or 
     witnesses, the jurisdiction will not be deemed a sanctuary 
     jurisdiction and will not lose any federal funds.
       To be clear: We believe the Stop Sanctuary Policies Act 
     will make America safer, enhance the ability of police to 
     protect and serve, and provide greater flexibility for law 
     enforcement officers at every level--federal, state, and 
     local.
       We also write to address those Members of Congress who 
     insist that the Stop Sanctuary Policies Act is not needed; 
     instead, Congress should ``encourage'' local officers to 
     cooperate with federal officials. This ignores one crucial 
     fact: Across America, federal courts have issued decisions 
     forbidding local officers from cooperating with federal 
     requests to hold an illegal immigrant. These decisions 
     provide that local law enforcement and municipalities may be 
     sued if they cooperate with federal officials to detain 
     dangerous criminals. Under these decisions, even if a federal 
     official would have had the authority to hold the individual, 
     local law enforcement can still be sued.
       Too often, local law enforcement officers are left with a 
     terrible choice: Either release an individual who has been 
     convicted of or arrested for violent crimes, or be sued and 
     lose funds that are needed to protect our communities. As a 
     result of these lawsuits, scores of cities and counties 
     across America have become sanctuary jurisdictions.
       The Stop Sanctuary Policies Act provides a solution. The 
     bill confirms that local law enforcement may cooperate with 
     federal requests to hold an illegal immigrant. The bill 
     provides that when local officers comply with such requests, 
     they are delegated the same powers to hold an illegal 
     immigrant as a DHS official would have. If the detention 
     would have been legal if carried out by the Department of 
     Homeland Security (DHS), then under S.2146 it is still legal; 
     it does not become a crime simply because it is a local 
     sheriff acting instead of a DHS official.
       This provision was carefully drafted to protect individual 
     liberties. It preserves an individual's ability to sue for a 
     violation of a constitutional or civil rights, regardless of 
     whether the violation was the result of negligence or was 
     purposeful. Under S.2146, if there was no basis to detain the 
     individual--DHS issued the request for someone in the U.S. 
     legally--the individual may still sue for a violation of 
     rights. The difference is that the party responsible for the 
     error, the federal government, is liable; not a local police 
     officer or jailer acting in good faith. If a local law 
     enforcement officer acts improperly--mistreating an 
     individual or continuing to hold an individual after federal 
     officials issue a release order--the individual may sue, with 
     the local officer liable for all costs and judgments.
       Contrary to the assertions of the American Civil Liberties 
     Union (ACLU)--the party that has orchestrated these lawsuits 
     against local law enforcement officers--the Stop Sanctuary 
     Policies Act is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment. 
     In a letter to Congress, the ACLU states, ``The Fourth 
     Amendment provides that the government cannot hold anyone in 
     jail without getting a warrant or the approval of a judge.'' 
     The fact is that the Constitution requires probable cause to 
     detain an individual, which can be established by a judicial 
     warrant issued before the arrest or by a demonstration of 
     probable cause after the arrest. Otherwise police could never 
     arrest someone whom they see committing a crime. The Stop 
     Sanctuary Policies Act does not alter the requirement for 
     probable cause. To the contrary, S.2146 explicitly preserves 
     an individual's ability to sue if he or she is held without 
     probable cause or has suffered any other violation of a 
     constitutional right.
       The ACLU also tries scare tactics. It claims that the Stop 
     Sanctuary Policies Act includes ``provisions requiring DHS to 
     absorb all liability in lawsuits brought by individuals 
     unlawfully detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.'' 
     This is false. If a lawsuit alleges that a local officer 
     knowingly violated Fourth Amendment or other constitutional 
     rights, then under S.2146, the individual officer will bear 
     all liability--not the federal government. For some lawsuits, 
     the U.S. will be substituted as defendant--specifically, 
     suits alleging that that the immigration detainer should not 
     have been issued. But such a claim could already be brought 
     against the U.S. under existing law; thus, S.2146 does not 
     create a new source of liability for the federal government. 
     S.2146 simply provides that if the federal government made 
     the error, the federal government should be the defendant.
       We, the law enforcement officers of America, are on the 
     front lines day after day. We know the challenges of 
     apprehending criminals and the difficulties of working with 
     crime victims and witnesses--especially those who may be 
     fearful of local and federal authorities. Based on our 
     collective knowledge and experience, we strongly support the 
     Stop Sanctuary Policies Act (S.2146) and urge the Senate to 
     pass this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
     National Sheriffs' Association.
     National Association of Police Organizations.
     Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, let me finish by reminding my colleagues 
that the vote we are about to have is not actually a vote on this bill 
in its current form. If Members object to a provision in it or they 
want to add a provision in it, then, by all means, let's vote to get on 
the bill. Let's open up debate, and we will have amendments, we will 
have a discussion, and we will have a debate. They are free to attempt 
to improve this bill and modify this bill, as they see fit.
  This vote today is not a final passage vote. It is a vote on whether 
the issue of sanctuary jurisdictions is important enough to merit the 
Senate's consideration.
  I was just shocked to hear one of our colleagues describe this bill 
as a waste of time. Really, a waste of time? That is unbelievable. How 
could the lives of Kate Steinle and the other victims who have been 
lost because of this ridiculous policy be a waste of the Senate's time 
when the courts are precluding the cooperation between local and 
Federal law enforcement officials because we have not acted? There is a 
simple solution. It starts with passing a motion to proceed so we can 
get on this bill and hopefully complete it successfully. I think the 
lives of Kate Steinle and the other victims are not a waste of time. I 
think we should be addressing this issue. We should be addressing it 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote aye so that we can begin considering 
this very important--and it should be broadly supported--bipartisan 
piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
oppose S. 2146, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.
  Hundreds of cities and local jurisdictions across our country have 
financial, constitutional, and public safety concerns with using scarce 
local tax dollars to hold immigrants in jail when they otherwise would 
be entitled to release under the law. These cities and towns are being 
called sanctuary cities because they have made a local and fact-based 
choice to keep their communities safe rather than serve as an arm of 
immigration enforcement.
  This bill would create new criminal penalties for undocumented 
immigrants and make life even harder for them, most of whom are honest, 
hard-working people, not criminals. The bill also takes severe steps to 
penalize these sanctuary cities by stripping them of critical community 
block grants and Federal homeland security and law enforcement funding. 
While this bill purports to protect our communities, it is strongly 
opposed by law enforcement, victims' advocates, and local and State 
government leaders.
  Why do they oppose this bill?
  Demonizing our immigrant communities and using them as scapegoats 
does not make America safer. Decades of research shows the following: 
that immigrants as a group are not a threat to public safety, that 
immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than the rest of 
Americans, and that the higher rates of immigration are associated with 
lower rates of violent crime.
  Law enforcement is clear. This bill would limit their ability to keep 
all people in their communities safe. Good community policy requires 
collaboration and trust. Our law enforcement officials want to spend 
their time going after people who truly pose a threat to our safety. 
This bill would have us spend limited resources pursuing hardworking 
though undocumented members of their communities with no criminal 
history. Community law enforcement should not be coerced, because that 
is what this bill would require. It is a requirement. Community law 
enforcement should not be coerced into serving as an arm of Federal 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is what this bill does. 
Nobody is talking about voluntary collaboration and support for Federal 
Government

[[Page S7323]]

enforcement of laws. Throughout this Congress, my Republican colleagues 
often rail against the Federal Government telling State and local 
governments what to do, but now when it comes to something as important 
as public safety and law enforcement, it is suddenly OK to second guess 
State and local law enforcement?

  Instead of turning hard-working immigrants into bogeymen, we should 
be focusing on real solutions for violent crime in our communities. If 
my colleagues who support this bill are serious about addressing 
violence in America, then they should come to the table to talk about 
how we can strengthen our laws to keep guns out of the hands of 
criminals and the mentally ill.
  I have been saying, along with many of my colleagues for over a year 
now, if my Republican colleagues want to discuss immigration reform, we 
welcome that debate. Everyone agrees our immigration system is broken 
and needs reform. It has been 28 months since the Senate passed a 
comprehensive immigration bill that had strong bipartisan support.
  Even though it was not perfect from my perspective, we nonetheless 
worked together to come up with a compromise bill, but House 
Republicans ducked the issue and refused to take up the immigration 
reform bill. The Senate comprehensive immigration bill would have 
reduced the Federal deficit by $1 trillion in just two decades because 
of the broad economic benefits immigration reform granted.
  It would have protected and united families, strengthened our border 
security, improved our economy, and encouraged job creation in our 
country. The Senate's bill would have gotten millions of people out of 
the shadows, requiring them to pass criminal background checks and earn 
their path to citizenship. It would have let immigration enforcement 
officials focus on true security threats to our country.
  The Senate's immigration bill included $46 billion in new resources 
to help our Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 
Of this amount, roughly $30 billion was added to the bill to further 
secure our borders, but that is not enough for some Republicans. 
Apparently, some will not be happy until we literally round up every 
undocumented immigrant--some 11 million of them in our country--and 
deport them, which would be catastrophic to our economy, not to mention 
impossible to do. The current sanctuary cities debate is not the first 
time some have tried to use myths about immigrants to scare Americans. 
This rhetoric could not be further from the truth about immigrants.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these scare tactics and to vote no on 
the motion to proceed to S. 2146.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________